Talk:Black-headed tailorbird/GA1

GA Review

Passed. simongraham (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: AryKun (talk · contribs) 09:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 11:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks another interesting article from AryKun and looks likely to be close to meeting the Good Article criteria. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall, the standard of the article is high.
It is of adequate length, with 1,286 words of readable prose.
The lead is reasonable given the length of the article at 308 words.
Authorship is 90.4% from the nominator with contributions from 21 other editors.
It is currently assessed as a B class article and a Did you know nomination.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- The writing is clear and appropriate.
- Please check "These phenotypes were previously incorrectly thought to be related to sex or representing different species". Consider "These phenotypes were previously incorrectly thought to be related to differences between the sexes or to represent different species".
Done.
- Consider a comma before "and" in "the upperparts, flanks, and undertail coverts are olive-green and the tail is darker olive-green".
Done.
- Consider "According to a 2012 study of genetic data, the black-headed tailorbird is most closely related to the white-eared tailorbird, and these two species are further closest to the yellow-breasted tailorbird". It feels confusing having "most closely" and "closest" in such close proximity. Is there an alternative way to say this that is clearer?
Attempted rewording.
- Change "adults having a 'black phenotype'" to "adults have a 'black phenotype'" for consistent grammar in the list.
Done.
- I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- The article is compliant.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- A reference section is included, with sources listed. It would be easier to use with a separate section listing the pages, but this is not a GA criteria.
- Please check the DOI for Ripley 1950 as it seems to be inactive as of April 2024.
I checked the page for the journal article and it still shows the same doi, I'm inclined to leave the doi in with the inactive tag for now.
all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- Please add that Madge 2020 requires subscription.
Done.
- Spot checks confirm Halley 2022, Hachisuka 1943 and Jobling 2010 cover the topic.
it contains no original research;
- All relevant statements have inline citations.
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- Earwig gives a 0% chance of copyright violation, which is extremely impressive.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- The article is compliant.
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- The article is compliant.
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- The article seems generally balanced and covers the controversy well.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- There is no evidence of edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- The image has an appropriate PD tag. Please confirm that it does not need an equivalent US tag.
I'm not particularly well-versed in our copyright rules, but I don't think it does. Afaik, we use the US public domain notices when the original author of the work did not release it into the PD, but it satisfies various criteria that make it PD under US law. Here, the original creator (the Philippine govt) has released the stamp into the PD.
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- The image is appropriate. Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.

@AryKun: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

simongraham, see replies above. AryKun (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AryKun: Excellent work. It is good to see you back. While there is of course no QPQ in GA, I would be interested in your views on any of my jumping spider Good Article nominations. In the meantime, I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Sure! I'm currently struggling with my motivation a bit, which is why I took a bit of a break, but I'll see if I can get back to reviewing GANs soon. AryKun (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun, that seems very reasonable to me. I hope that, if you need to, you feel that you can call on me to support you as you have encouraged me. simongraham (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pass simongraham (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.